INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Kamal Shankar, Varun Lamba, Arjun Narang and Shivam Jain, AZB & Partners
public servant in discharge of their official functions or duties. Therefore, a fully fledged inquiry is not required before registering an FIR; however, if the offence is relatable to the discharge of official functions, a sanction would be necessary before conducting a preliminary inquiry and then registering an FIR. Prior Sanction Under Section 19 of the PC Act Section 19 of the PC Act mandates that no court shall take cognisance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under Sections 7, 11, 13 or 15 of the PC Act, except with the previous sanc - tion of the competent authority. This provision aims to protect public servants from frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions, ensuring that only competent authorities can grant permission to prosecute. The requirement of prior sanction is a safeguard to prevent the misuse of legal provisions against har - assment of public servants. However, in recent times the courts have clarified on multiple occasions that mere irregularities in the granting of sanction do not automatically vitiate the trial. The prosecution must demonstrate that such irregularities have resulted in a failure of justice and caused grave prejudice to the accused. In Luckose Joseph v State of Kerala , 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5986, the Kerala High Court observed that, while a valid sanction is a prerequisite for prosecuting public servants under the PC Act, mere error or irregularities in the sanction order will not alter or reverse any find - ing, sentence or order of a court unless it causes a fail - ure of justice. This judgment underscores the principle that procedural defects must be substantial enough to affect the fairness of the trial. Similarly, in State of Punjab v Hari Kesh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 49, the Supreme Court held that irregular - ity or error in the granting of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is not a ground for quashing the trial unless it results in a failure of justice, especially in a case where trial has already commenced. The Supreme Court emphasised that the validity of a sanc - tion order should be tested during the course of the trial, as the trial court has to appreciate the evidence
on the aspect of whether the irregularity of sanction caused a failure of justice. Applicability of the PC Act – Definition of “Public Servants” Section 2 (c) of the PCA defines a “public servant” to include: • individuals in the service or pay of the government; • persons remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty; • officers or employees of corporations owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government; and • individuals holding positions by virtue of which they are authorised or required to perform any public duty. This broad definition ensures that various categories of individuals, beyond regular government employ - ees, are encompassed under the PCA’s ambit. The expansive definition of “public servant” under the PC Act has been pivotal in prosecuting individuals who, despite not being traditional government employees, perform public duties or hold positions of trust. This includes private individuals and employees of private entities who, by virtue of their roles related to public duty, are deemed to be public servants. In Aman Bhatia v the State (NCT of Delhi) , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013, the Supreme Court ruled that licensed stamp vendors are public servants under the PC Act. The Court reasoned that these vendors, by performing a public duty and receiving government remuneration, fall within the definition of public serv - ants. This judgment extended the scope of the PC Act to include individuals in public-facing roles, reinforc - ing the Act’s objective of comprehensively combating corruption. Similarly, in State of Maharashtra v Sanjay S/O , 2025 BHC-NAG 7223, the Court clarified that individuals holding positions by virtue of which they are author - ised or required to perform any public duty are con - sidered public servants under the PC Act. The case involved a dismissed Vidhan Bhavan cashier who was found guilty of possessing disproportionate assets,
160 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook